Everything about Animal burrows surveys on the Hedwige levee
id;activity_name;activity_type;activity_descriptor;breaching;animal;erosion;temporary;levee_survey;prolonged;start_date;end_date;date_length_day;date_length_hour;date_other;levee_stretch;location_x;location_y;location_z;location_descriptor;location_other;objectif_important;objectif_knowledge;pre_condition;act_des;monitoring_process;monitoring_reasoning;limits;during_activity;post_activity;activity_result;results_conc;knowledge_desc;ref_links;wrk_1;wrk_2;wrk_3;key_info
48;Animal burrows surveys on the Hedwige levee;Survey;Data collection on the type, size, spatial distribution of burrows as well as the the underground geometry of burrow systems. This was done with visual inspection, GPR scanning and the so-called smoke test.;False;True;False;False;True;False;2021-09-08 08:30:00;2021-09-08 17:30:00;;9.0;;VI;;;;The survey was performed on the inner slope, starting 80.5m SE of the concrete stairs in front the former farm De Cloedt. A levee stretch of 100m was surveyed in total, moving in the direction from NW to SE.;;"1.	Gain insight into the types of animals that are active in the living lab as well as the geometry and spatial distribution of the burrows they create on the levee.
2.	Monitor the levee inspection process and derive lessons that can improve the practices of levee guards.
3.	Test feasibility and compare results of two methods for evaluation of burrows; the ground penetrating radar and the smoke method.
4.	Identify locations with burrows that could be tested later on, in a large-scale overflow experiment.
5.	Compare findings from the application of three different survey techniques and draw lessons for their future use.";During levee inspection exercises organised by Polder2C’s, it became clear that there is no consensus among levee management authorities on the level of risk that various types of burrows pose on a levee. Risk evaluation relies on individual assessments by levee guards and can vary substantially among individuals with different experience, from different authorities or from different countries. Apart from this, it was also noticed that current practices are mostly informed by the experiences of local levee guards that are largely unreported and are not systematically compared to scientific findings. The purpose of this survey was to collect data in a coordinated manner, hence contribute to future efforts to address the above-mentioned issues.;NA;NA;NA;NA;;"- Visual inspection: Burrows made by small rodents were impossible to spot in sections with long grass, while in places where the grass was mowed it was still difficult. The more times that an inspector passed from a spot the more burrows were found. 
- Burrows registration: App2C was really easy to use, but location data do not provide the level of accuracy that is needed to analyse spatial patterns of burrows. Paper mapping is labour intensive, and could be performed more efficiently than how it was done in this survey.
- GPR measurements: The time needed for this activity was underestimated. It took longer than the team had originally expected. On the day the conditions for GPR measurements were very suitable; it was a hot day and it hadn't rained for a while, which made the ground relatively dry. 
- Smoke test: This test was not successful in this first trial, because a part of the experimental installation was overheated and failed. Still the team managed to detected interconnectedness between 2 burrows.";There was no damage or alteration of the surveyed levee stretch.;"- Only burrows by small rodents were detected (diameters up to 12 cm).
- Two spatial patterns of burrows could be discerned in the surveyed area; 1) burrows in a linear setup with orientation in the vertical direction, i.e. crest to toe, and 2) burrows that were clustered close to each other in a relatively small area.
- The detected burrows were most likely entrances and exits to underground corridors that lead to dens, which could be situated deeper in the body of the levee.
- The largest burrow depth that was registered during mapping was 25 cm, while the GPR results showed that the scanned burrow system reached a depth of 35 cm. In both cases no penetration of the sand core of the levee can be claimed, as the sand core is at 80-100cm depth in this location.";The immediate results are not yet suitable for firm conclusions. They will have to be compared and contrasted with other results of subsequent surveys, and the collected data have to be further processed.;"- A set of practical tips for future surveys with a  focus on the detection of burrows by small rodents, and guidance for effective use of the smoke test.
- Preliminary identification of possible patterns in the spatial distribution of burrows on a levee section.";;True;True;False;


All DATA concerning Animal burrows surveys on the Hedwige levee
data_type;data_descripion;date_date;data_find;data_media;data_media_find
"Xls files indicating location and depth of burrows;";"Xls files indicating location and depth of burrows;";2022-05-31;https://stowanl-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/llhpp_stowa_nl/EcMu4z7x7k9DhpKWaGfC9roBfQ1FvxNZR93q-S-aLv8VfQ?e=PaNxSP;;


All EQUIPMENTS concerning Animal burrows surveys on the Hedwige levee
equip_type;equip_usage
"Probes
Fluorescent sprays (4)
";Detection of burrows
Smartphones with App2C installed;Digital registration of burrows
Cameras (2);Digital registration of burrows
Grid paper and pencils ;Paper mapping of burrows
50m-long measuring tapes (6);Paper mapping of burrows
5m-long measuring tapes (2);Paper mapping of burrows
Leafblower;Smoke test
Barrel;Smoke test
Smoke bombs (10);Smoke test
Hose;Smoke test
Plastic buckets (2);Smoke test
Georadar IDS Opera Duo;GPR scanning
Georadar IDS RIS;GPR scanning


All SENSORS concerning Animal burrows surveys on the Hedwige levee
No sensors added